Crime Reduction Efforts in the US

Criminology Explain the difference between the consensus, pluralist, and conflict perspectives. Which comes closest to your way of understandingsociety Why
Since diversity is acknowledged in the pluralist perspective, the process of conflict and negotiation is allowed in an attempt to definite and realize the common good that is most appropriate for all members of society. Hence, the scope and content of the common good is not given beforehand (a priori), but can only be fully realized afterwards (a posteriori). This kind of negotiation may be a manner of achieving the common good since the people can exercise power in decision-making, producing more sense of commitment from all its members. In democratic politics, pluralism allows peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles by presenting opposing arguments to arrive at a middle ground ("Pluralism", 2006).
In the consensus perspective of criminal justice, the "organizations of a criminal justice system must work cooperatively to establish justice, not competitively" ("Consensus Model (criminal justice)", n.d.). However, goodness is a multi-dimensional relative concept, and people always have different and opposing interests that may cause position or role conflicts, so achieving this goal may be impossible in practical cases. Having one consistent system means that it may only be one-sided and only favors one particular group in the society.
On the other hand, in the conflict perspective, the "organizations of a criminal justice system must work competitively to establish justice, not cooperatively" because conflicts are inevitable. A society is consistently subjected to a process of constant change, which produces social conflicts. Moreover, changes in customs, political ideals and economic conditions may cause the criminal justice system to contradict itself. So this advocates the natural role of a dialectic processes ("Conflict model (criminal justice)", n.d.).
For me, a "true" system cannot be simply defined. Each system, defining extreme and strict ideas on implementing justice, possesses its own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the combination of all of them may be appropriate in practical cases.
2. If you were in charge of government crime reduction efforts, what steps would you take to control crime in the United States Why would you choose those particular approaches
Maintaining social control, enforcing laws, defining rights, and administering justice is a dynamic process because requires inspecting and updating each aspect of a justice system periodically, as aspects of culture constantly change (e.g., human social relationships, traditions, norms, the difference between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ and other concepts). Considering the relativity of goodness, establishing one law that can tackle all is impossible, and situation must be treated in a case-to-case basis ("Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century", 2000).
Moreover, weighing means and ends or costs and benefits before arriving at a rational choice is a subjective process, so there is no perfect system that would fit everyone. Considering the complexity of reality (e.g., differences in social classes, ongoing issues on ethics) but with an attempt to advocate fairness, only a certain level of standardization can be established, but the standards must be consistently updated ("Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century", 2000).
Therefore, by adopting the characteristics of different perspectives, the possibility of taking advantage of their positive characteristics is increased. The members of society must engage in negotiation to accommodate differences, like in the pluralist perspective, instead of having institutional dominance that only makes the social imbalance worse. Negotiation and competition processes must be allowed because they are the catalysts for change by questioning the common beliefs and challenging the conventions. However, the members must still observe certain conditions. For pluralism to work effectively in defining the common good, the groups must agree with their common values, which maintain the unity of different groups in a society to aid resolving differences between groups ("Pluralism", 2006. Pluralism, n.d.). Hence, the rights (at least as defined in the law) must still be mutually respected, the differences in ideas must be tolerated without forcing others to submit into someone’s position in conflicts that naturally arise from diverging roles and positions. Successful negotiation between conflicting ideas can arrive at a certain compromise (and possibly, mutual understanding), which does not purely coincide with the ideals of any group but is the most appropriate manner of pleasing conflicting parties. A system that possesses these characteristics allows different groups to coexist and interact.
"Conflict model (criminal justice)", n.d. Retrieved 10 August 2006 from
"Consensus model (criminal justice)", n.d. Retrieved 10 August 2006 from
"Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century". (April, 2000). Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved August 10, 2006 from
"Pluralism" 8 August 2006. Wikipedia Foundation Inc. Retrieved 10 August 2006 from
"Pluralism" n.d. Retrieved 10 August 2006 from

You Might Also Like